Workers’ comp, JTAC bills pass full Senate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Legislation out of the House of Representatives reconfiguring workers’ compensation in Indiana passed the Senate Wednesday and goes back to the House with some changes.

House Bill 1320 increases nonmedical workers’ compensation caps to $390,000 per injury for injuries happening after July 1, 2014. It also increases the average weekly wage used to calculate compensation for nonmedical temporary partial or total disability, and for total permanent disability; on or after July 1, 2014, the average weekly wage used will be $1,170. That’s a $195 increase over the wage used for injuries that would occur today.

The bill also makes changes to payment rates as compared to Medicare. The legislation passed the Senate 43-7.

The Judicial Technology and Automation bill, HB 1393, passed the Senate 50-0. The bill establishes a judicial technology oversight committee, requires the Division of State Court Administration to develop and implement a standard protocol for sending and receiving court data by the end of the year, and increases the automated record keeping fee by $2 for two years, among other things. HB 1393 returns to the House with amendments.

The Senate also passed HB 1482 by a vote of 39-11. The bill allows a court to expunge records concerning misdemeanor convictions and minor Class D felony convictions under certain circumstances, and it gives judges discretion concerning some more serious felony convictions. The bill returns to the House with amendments.

On Thursday, the Senate concurred with House amendments to SB 125. The bill, which creates a commission on improving the status of children, a Department of Child Services oversight committee, and establishes a local child fatality review team in each county and a statewide child fatality review committee, passed 48-1 and is ready for enrollment. The introduced version of the bill was prepared by the Department of Child Services Interim Study Committee.

Also on Wednesday, the House voted 93-0 to approve Senate Bill 433 addressing abandoned property issues. The bill establishes a procedure to allow a county executive to dispose of certain properties that didn’t sell at a tax sale to a person who is able to repair and maintain the property. It also says that someone who enters or refuses to leave a vacant or abandoned property after having been barred from it by a court order or law enforcement officer commits criminal trespass. SB 433 was returned to the Senate with amendments. 

SB 285 regarding wavier of the right to remonstrate against annexation passed the House 93-0. It provides that if someone waives his or her right to remonstrate against an annexation as part of a contract with a municipality for providing sewer service to the property, then that release isn’t binding on a successor in title of the property under certain circumstances.  It also returns to the Senate after being amended.

The 2013 legislative session is scheduled to end April 29.



Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?